Apr 12, 2017

Il’in and Tolstoy on the Use of Force

A few
uncomfortable questions confront esoteric circles and citizens who want to live
in peace. These are a few examples:

* From an ethical point of view, how far should one
oppose fraud and hypocrisy, and fight terrorism, and anti-Semitism?

* Wouldn’t it be easier for friends of peace to wash their
hands and pretend they are too spiritual to ever defend life or ethics? And - what
sort of peace can nations obtain by using good-willing falsehood?

All that glitters is not gold.

The history of a materialistic civilization is often
an ugly thing to see. Theosophy invites us to look at life in all its aspects -
and take lessons. It’s no use denying the presence of cruelty and butchery: we
also cannot wish them away in press conferences and diplomatic talks held in
elegant luxury hotels.

In 1875 Russian thinker Helena Blavatsky founded the
theosophical movement, whose main goal is to promote universal brotherhood
regardless of one’s religion, ideology, sex or social condition. Yet Blavatsky
didn’t pretend she was blind before ethical questions. She had clear words to say
on the violent conflict in human history between noble impulses and the worship
of selfishness. And she was not afraid of opposing Islamic-inspired cruelties. In
an article entitled “Turkish Barbarities”, she wrote during the Russo-Turkish
war of 1877-1878:

“Let me say (…) that during this campaign the Turkish
troops have been guilty of such fiendish acts as make me pray that my relatives
may be killed rather than fall into their hands.” [1]

Blavatsky then describes in detail various massacres
perpetrated by Turkish troops, which there is no need to reproduce here. She mentions
the hypocrisy of Western powers, including the Vatican, which were secretly
more inclined to cause harm to Christian Russia than to help the fight against Muslim
terror:

“Russia is surrounded by false neutrals, who but watch
the opportunity to fly at her throat; and, shameful fact!, the blessing of the
Pope rests upon the Muslim standards, and his curse against his fellow
Christians has been read in all the Catholic
churches.” [2]

Blavatsky concludes:

“I regard this war not as one of Christian against Muslim,
but as one of humanity and civilization against barbarism.” [3]

There is nothing new under the Sun.

In their disrespect for human lives, the Turkish
troops were then behaving much like the 21st century Islamic Terrorists do.
Western Europe had little to say in that situation, and its inability to act
was denounced by Russian author Turguenyev among others. [4]

A few decades after the 1870s war against Russia and other
Slavic countries, the Turkish policy of systematic cruelties would culminate in
the Armenian Genocide of 1915, with at least 800,000 defenseless victims
assassinated.[5] Sincehypocrisy is still not hard to find in
politics, the obvious fact of the Armenian Genocide is even today denied by
many.

As time passed, the difficulty of Western Europe to fight
evil got more serious. During most of the 1930s, the old continent did not even
try to stop the militaristic hysteria promoted by Adolf Hitler. In 1938 England make a Pact with Nazism. Such
a blind love for short term peace
condemned Western Europe to unutterable disaster. It had to be Russia and the
United States to defeat Nazism in the 1940s.

By then Europe was largely destroyed, its population
reduced, and a Jewish Holocaust, much larger than the Armenian one, had been
perpetrated by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi war machine. In our century, the same
sort of challenge has surfaced again. Islamic terror and its organized nonsense have their chance to
deceive naïve peace-lovers in the West. Many of those who deny the Armenian
Genocide also deny the Jewish Holocaust, and several political and religious leaders
in the West insist in appeasing anti-Semitism and terror-sponsors, just as their
predecessors did regarding Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s.

Theosophy has clear statements to make regarding the
problem of large-scale, systematic cruelty. The Eastern Masters of Wisdom who
inspire the theosophical effort teach that ethics is the inevitable foundation
of peace.

One of them wrote:

“Every Western Theosophist should learn and remember,
especially those of them who would be our followers - that in our Brotherhood,
all personalities sink into one idea - abstract right and absolute practical
justice for all. And that, though we may not say with the Christians, ‘return
good for evil’ - we repeat with Confucius - ‘return good for good; for evil -
JUSTICE’.” [6]

And justice is sometimes severe.

People of good will often think organizations which
support terror or boycott Israel should be treated as if they were peace-loving
and politically correct groups. But some disciple asked Confucius, various
centuries before Christianity was born:

“What do you think about the principle of rewarding
enmity with kindness?”

And the Master answered:

“With what, then, would you reward kindness? Reward
enmity with just treatment, and kindness with kindness.” [7]

On another occasion, a disciple asked:

“What should I do to ensure the contentment of the
people?”

Confucius explained:

“If you promote the upright and dismiss the ill-doer, the
people will be contented; but if you promote the ill-doer and dismiss the
upright, the people will be discontented.” [8]

For many centuries, the question of resistance to evil
has been a central issue in the agenda of those who love Life and respect
mankind. The issue was well addressed by Russian philosopher Ivan A. Il’in.

N. O. Lossky says in his “History of Russian
Philosophy” [9]:

“Il’in’s inquiry into ‘Resisting Evil by Force’ is a
valuable piece of work. He sharply criticizes in it Tolstoy’s doctrine of
nonresistance. Il’in says that Tolstoy calls all recourse to force in the
struggle with evil ‘violence’ and regards it as an attempt ‘sacrilegiously’ to
usurp God’s will by invading another person’s inner life which is in God’s
hands. Il’in thinks that Tolstoy’s doctrine contains the following absurdity: ‘When a villain injures an honest man or
demoralizes a child, that, apparently, is God’s will; but when an honest man
tries to hinder the villain, that is not God’s will’.”

Inaction before injustice is not good. What should one
do, then, in order to stop or prevent evil actions? Lossky writes and quotes from
Il’in:

“In order to prevent the irremediable consequences of
a blunder or of an evil passion a man who strives after the good must in the
first instance seek mental and spiritual means to overcome evil by good. But if
he has no such means at his disposal, he is bound to use mental or physical
compulsion and prevention. ‘It is right
to push away from the brink of a precipice an absent-minded wayfarer; to snatch
the bottle of poison from an embittered suicide; to strike at the right moment
the hand of a political assassin aiming at his victim; to knock down an incendiary
in the nick of time; to drive out of a church shameless desecrators; to make an
armed attack against a crowd of soldiers raping a child’ (54). ‘Resistance to evil by force and by the sword
is permissible not when it is possible, but when it is necessary because there
are no other means available’; in that case it is not only a man’s right
but his duty to enter that path (195 f.) even though it may lead to the
malefactor’s death.”

One should carefully examine the ethical challenges implied
in such a situation, and Lossky asks himself:

“Does this imply that the end justifies the means? No,
certainly not. The evil of physical compulsion or prevention does not become
good because it is used as the only means in our power for attaining a good
end. In such cases, says Il’in, the way of force and of the sword ‘is both obligatory and unrighteous’
(197). ‘Only the best of men can carry
out this unrighteousness without being infected by it, can find and observe the
proper limits in it, can remember that it is wrong and spiritually dangerous,
and discover personal and social antidotes for it. By comparison with the
rulers of the state happy are the monks, the scholars, the artists and thinkers:
it is given to them to do clean work with clean hands. They must not, however,
judge or condemn the soldiers and politicians, but be grateful to them and pray
that they may be cleansed from their sin and made wise: their own hands are
clean for doing clean work only because other people had clean hands for doing
dirty work’ (209). ‘If the principle
of state compulsion and prevention were expressed by the figure of a warrior,
and the principle of religious purification, prayer and righteousness by the
figure of a monk - the solution of the
problem would consist in recognizing their necessity to each other’ (219)”.

From a theosophical perspective, every citizen must
combine in himself the substance of a warrior who fights for justice, and of a
monk, who maintains a contemplative attitude towards life. [10]

N. O. Lossky closes his text saying that “the
possibility of situations that inevitably lead to the contradiction between a
good purpose and imperfect means is man’s moral
tragedy, as Il’in and other thinkers sharing his view express it”.

For the citizen of 21st century, one practical lesson
from the above is that it is wrong to think one must be outwardly kind to all in
each and every situation. Unilateral meekness often paves the way to subconscious
sadomasochism and other forms of continued aggression. Balance and justice in
relations among people are not a goal one can abandon.

In the Torah, Deuteronomy, 16: 18-20 says:

“You shall appoint magistrates and officials for your
tribes (…) and they shall govern the people with due justice. You shall not
judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for
bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just.
Justice, justice shall you pursue…”. [11]

Confucianism, Judaism, the best of Christianity, the
highest aspects of Islam, true philosophy and real theosophy, all point to the
same direction of righteousness and ethics based on an active sense of Justice,
not on surrender to evil. Right action is inseparable from mercy, and compassion
includes the necessary measure of severity.

Regardless of religion, nationality, political
ideology or social condition, the duty of those who want peace on Earth includes
unmasking and eliminating the causes of disrespect for life.

NOTES:

[1] “Turkish Barbarities”, H.P.
Blavatsky. The article was first published in New York in August 1877. See
“Collected Writings”, H.P.B., TPH, Volume I, p. 256.

[4] See Turguenyev’s poem “Croquet at Windsor”,
translated by H.P. Blavatsky from the Russian, at “Collected Writings”, H.P.B.,
TPH, Volume I, pp. 253-254. The poem is a vigorous denunciation of the
Turkish-Muslim atrocities.

[9] “History of Russian Philosophy”, N. O. Lossky,
London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1952, 416 pp., see pp. 387-389. We adopt
the transliteration of Il’in’s surname into our alphabet according to its use
in the recent Western editions of his books. His name is also transliterated as
“Ilyin”, among other options.

[10] See for instance the article
“Moral Strength in Judo and Theosophy”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline. It is
available in our associated websites.